Staff recommends that the City Council review the recommended revisions to the Guidelines that have been forwarded from the View Restoration Commission (VRC) and provide Staff with any additional input and direction.

BACKGROUND

On April 20, 2002, the City Council, after hearing a presentation on the view restoration process, decided to retire the View Restoration Commission and to transfer its workload to the Planning Commission. Council also agreed that the VRC should review and make recommendations for improving the existing View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines, prior to the final disbandment of the Commission.

In June of 2002 after receiving direction from the City Council to review the Guidelines, the VRC appointed a sub-committee and directed Staff to work with the committee to review the guidelines and to discuss how the process, via the Guidelines, could be clarified and possibly streamlined. The sub-committee met in July 2002 and from that meeting, several issues were discussed and presented to the VRC as suggested modifications. The issues were presented to the full VRC on October 3, 2002 (minutes attached). The issue areas discussed are listed below:

What is a view and should the significance determination be taken out of the review equation.

Simplify the determination on how often to trim by establishing specific trim levels and allowable growth heights.

Establish incentives for the view enforcement process.

Restrict lacing (a trimming technique) to the left and right edges of a view frame.

Assure that all required work is done with reasonable quality.

Review the tree replacement guidelines

Review privacy issues.

Improve neighbor contact prior to the pre-application process.

On November 21, 2002, Staff presented the final draft of the proposed Guideline revisions (as discussed on October 3, 2002) to the VRC to ensure that they reflected the intent of the Commission. The VRC approved the Guideline revisions and directed Staff to present the recommended changes to the City Council for final approval and adoption (minutes attached). The proposed modifications are now being presented to the City Council for its review.

DISCUSSION

Guideline Amendments

The draft Guidelines have been amended by the VRC based on the eight issue areas noted above and a copy of the amended version of the Guidelines is attached. Language that is proposed to be inserted is shown in underlined text, while language that is to be deleted is shown in strike out text. The proposed changes are summarized by issue as follows:

Issue 1 What is a View, and should the significance determination be taken out of the equation.

The VRC's subcommittee proposed to revert back to the language of the original Ordinance and not let a determination of significance come into consideration. The subcommittee believed that this approach would help to eliminate the subjectivity in the review process and the possibility of missing foliage that may not be visible at the time of the site visit for staff report preparation. This would mean that the words "significant" and "significantly" would no longer be used to describe the threshold for allowable view impairment and that any foliage that blocked any part of the defined view frame would have to be trimmed to a specified point. Conversely, this would have also required an amendment to the Ordinance. The VRC did not agree with this approach and agreed to keep the significance determination as part of the review process. Additionally, the Commission believed that the sub-committee's desired result could be achieved without removing the word "significant". As such, this issue was addressed by making amendments to the text of the attached draft Guidelines in the following section: Section VII Application Procedures (E)

Issue 2 Simplify the determination on how often to trim by establishing specific trim levels and allowable growth heights.

The VRC established an extra provision to the existing maintenance schedule provisions whereby the Commission could craft conditions that allow for acceptable growth between the time of the initial trimming and subsequent scheduled trimming. This approach reduces the potential for disputes over a few leaves and inconsequential branches exceeding the established view frame. The concept would help reduce the unnecessary requests to Staff for review of insignificant foliage growth and it would eliminate the need to trim all foliage, which can grow at different rates. The following Section of the Guidelines has been modified to accommodate this change: Section V Commission Action (H).

Issue 3 Establish incentives for the view enforcement process.

Enforcement for current view preservation cases is generally based on a complaint made by the applicant that the foliage is in violation. Often the requests are made before the condition mandated maintenance trimming is to occur, which can be annually, semi-annually, quarterly, etc., and frequently the requests are investigated and determined to be unfounded. In order to reduce these types of requests, the VRC suggested that a financial deterrent be added to the maintenance request (or view code enforcement) process. Under the current process, Staff has to respond to almost every complaint call. The suggested process would make the applicant and foliage owner more accountable. The change would require that the applicant notify the foliage owner and the City, via a copy of the letter sent to the foliage owner, of the encroachment on their view. The foliage owner would then have 30 days to correct the view encroachment. If during that time the foliage owner and the applicant disagree on the view encroachment, then Staff would visit the site and make a determination. The inspection fee would be charged to the person (applicant or foliage owner) who is in error. The following Section of the Guidelines has been modified to accommodate this change: Section VIII View Preservation (A) 1 (b).

Issue 4 Restrict lacing (a trimming technique) to the left and right edges of a view frame.

The subcommittee suggested that lacing should be used as a method to restore a view only when the view impairing foliage is located on the edges of an applicant's view frame. However, the VRC did not want to be as restrictive and felt that in some cases lacing a tree located in the middle of a view frame may be a viable option to restoring a view. The Guidelines were not modified and no change was made.

Issue 5 Assure that all required work is done with reasonable quality.

The VRC wanted a way to have more confidence that work ordered by the

Commission was being done with reasonable quality. As a result, the VRC agreed to modify the instructions to the applicant for obtaining bids, so as to require an ISA certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist on site to perform or supervise the work being done. The following Section of the Guidelines has been modified to accommodate this change: Section V Commission Action (K).

Issue 6 Review the tree replacement guidelines.

The VRC found an inconsistent statement in Section V (A) of the Guidelines that appeared to be in conflict with Section V (A) 4 related to the tree replacement Guidelines. However, after discussing the matter with the City Attorney, this issue was remedied by striking one sentence from Section V(A)4. The following Section of the Guidelines has been modified to accommodate this change: Section V Commission Action (A) 4. Additionally, the VRC wanted to eliminate the ability for a foliage owner to obtain replacement foliage (that is paid for by the applicant) when it is clear, based on the City Arborist recommendation, that the action to trim the foliage will likely kill the foliage and that removal with replacement is a more feasible option. The VRC agreed that the foliage owner should forfeit the right to a replacement tree if the work is done under these circumstances.The following Section of the Guidelines has been modified to accommodate this change: Section V Commission Action (B)

Issue 7 Review privacy issues.

The Commission agreed that some foliage owners overuse the privacy provisions of the Guidelines and that in many cases there really is no real argument for privacy protection. In some cases trees are so tall and the crown of the tree is so high that the only "privacy" afforded the person is by virtue of the tree trunk, yet the owner will insist that his privacy is seriously compromised. As such, the VRC modified the following section of the Guidelines to clarify that only pre-existing privacy is to be mitigated: Section V Commission Action (E) 1 (b). Additionally, a diagram that illustrates this process has been included.

The VRC wanted to require better evidence of early neighbor contact by having a box on a form checked by the applicant and requiring that a copy of a registered letter be submitted indicating that the applicant had made an attempt to contact the other party before filing a Notice of Intent Application with the City. The following Section of the Guidelines has been modified to accommodate this change: Section IV Commission Action (A) 2.

Other VRC Suggested Revisions

The View Restoration Commission also discussed and made minor changes to the Guidelines in areas that were not covered by the eight issues described above. Those changes are listed below.

Insertion of a Sample View Restoration Private Agreement (attached) - this form has been tested during a few pre-application meetings and it has been a useful tool.

Insertion of the Acceptable Foliage Growth Diagram (attached) - this diagram illustrates the acceptable growth height of 16 feet or the ridgeline whichever is lower.

Section IV2 (d) - This section provides language that deals with Staff and/or the Mediation Commissioner assisting in the preparation of private agreement.

Section V (C) - Minor word additions as shown.

Section V (D) - This section provides language that describes a policy that is in practice but is not stated in the Guidelines. The policy allows the Commission to require trimming below 16 feet or the ridgeline for aesthetic reasons, but only with the foliage owner's consent.

Ad Hoc Committee Amendments

On November 17, 1998, the then City Council appointed an ad hoc committee made up of then Mayor pro tem Lee Byrd and then Council member Marilyn Lyon. The ad hoc committee was instructed to review the view restoration and preservation process and to develop recommendations for improving the process and reducing the City's overall cost of administering the program. In July of 1999, the ad hoc committee presented its findings at a public workshop held with the full City Council with input from the View Restoration Commission. The ad hoc committee's report and the City Council's discussion focused on the following issues:

Process and Pre-application

Documentation

Fees

Cost of foliage trimming, removal and replacement

Replacement Foliage

Privacy Issues

Multiple Fees

Foliage not specifically designated

At the conclusion of the July 19th meeting, Council directed Staff to amend the Guidelines to reflect the comments and suggestions made on the issues noted above. The Council at that time agreed that the recommended changes would serve to strengthen and streamline the view restoration and preservation process. Thus, on September 7, 1999 the City Council met to discuss the recommended language revisions (September 7, 1999 staff report and minutes see attached). At that time, the Council decided that more time was needed to absorb the long and complex report and the item was continued to a future meeting. However, no action was subsequently taken as the ad hoc committee never met again. Staff included the previous ad hoc committee's recommendations into the version of the Guidelines presented to the VRC for their review. The VRC indicated no objections to implementing any of the amendments suggested in the attached September 7, 1999 staff report. A description of these amendments is contained in the attached September 7, 1999 staff report.

Relationship to the View Ordinance

According to the City Attorney, all of the proposed Guideline amendments described in this Staff Report may be adopted by the City Council without the need for additional amendments to the Ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT

As described above, one of the View Restoration Commission's proposed recommendations is for the City Council to establish a maintenance request inspection fee. The recommendation was made with the intention that such a fee would encourage participants to work with each other thereby reducing the number of unfounded inspection requests made to staff. If the Council approves such a fee, Staff's workload with regard to these requests, would be reduced and there would be a slight increase in revenue to the City's General Fund.

CONCLUSION

On April 20, 2002, the City Council, after hearing a presentation on the view restoration process, decided to retire the View Restoration Commission after it concludes a review of the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines. In June of 2002 after receiving direction from the City Council to review the Guidelines, the VRC appointed a sub-committee and began its review of the Guidelines. On November 21, 2002, the VRC approved certain modifications to the Guidelines and directed Staff to present their suggestions to the City Council for final adoption. As a result, Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the draft Guidelines.

RESTORATION OF VIEWS WHERE
FOLIAGE IS INVOLVED (VIEW RESTORATION PERMITS)
AND PRESERVATION OF VIEWS WHERE FOLIAGE IS INVOLVED

(CODE ENFORCEMENT)

ADOPTED ON:FEBRUARY 17, 1998December 17, 2003

Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. PURPOSE

II. DEFINITIONS

III. ESTABLISHING THE VIEW AREA

IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS (View Restoration)

V. COMMISSION ACTION (View Restoration)

VI. APPEAL OF COMMISSION DECISION (View Restoration)

VII. APPLICATION PROCEDURES (View Restoration)

VIII. VIEW PRESERVATION (Code Enforcement)

ATTACHMENTS

Documentation of Existing View or Foliage Form

Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application Form

View Restoration Permit Application Form

View Restoration Permit Process Flowchart

Map of Miraleste Recreation and Park District Boundaries

List of Streets within the Miraleste Homeowners' Association

Property Development Code Section 17.02.040

Sample View Restoration Private Agreement

I. PURPOSE

A. The View Restoration Commission was created in accordance with Article 17 of Paragraph A of Section 2 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Association and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Cooperative View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance, which was passed by the voters of the City on November 7, 1989. The Ordinance has been codified into the City's Municipal Code as Section 17.02.040, View Preservation and Restoration.

B. The ballot measure which was approved by the voters states the purposes of the Ordinance as follows:

"The hillsides of the City constitute a limited natural resource in their
scenic value to all residents of and visitors to the City. The hillsides provide
potential vista points and view lots. The City's General Plan recognizes these
natural resources and calls for their protection. The public health, safety
and welfare of the City require prevention of needless destruction and impairment
of these limited vista points and view lots. The purpose of this Ordinance
is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public by accomplishing
the purposes set forth below, and this Ordinance shall be administered in
accordance with such purposes. Where this Ordinance is in conflict with other
City ordinances, the stricter shall apply.

Specifically, this Ordinance:

"1. Protects, enhances and perpetuates views available to property owners
and visitors because of the unique topographical features of the Palos Verdes
Peninsula. These views provide unique and irreplaceable assets to the City
and its neighboring communities and provide for this and future generations
examples of the unique physical surroundings which are characteristic of the
City.

2. Defines and protects finite visual resources by establishing limits
which construction and plant growth can attain before encroaching onto a view.

3. Insures that the development of each parcel of land or additions to
residences or structures occur in a manner which is harmonious and maintains
neighborhood compatibility and the character of contiguous sub-community development
as defined in the General Plan.

4. Requires the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which alone,
or in conjunction with construction, exceeds defined limits."

Thus, the general purpose of the Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City, by balancing the rights of the residential property owner with foliage against the rights of the residential property owner to have a view from a viewing area restored so that it can be enjoyed, when that view has been significantly impaired by foliage.

C. The View Restoration Commission accomplishes its purpose through a process of View Restoration Permit application, site inspection, public hearings and a decision on the application. The Commission's jurisdiction is limited to issues regarding view impairment caused by foliage, through the issuance of View Restoration Permits, and appeals of City Tree Review Permits and view preservation determinations.

D. View restoration requests involving trees located on City-owned property, such as public parks, parkways and medians along public streets, are administered by City Staff through the issuance of a City Tree Review Permit issued pursuant to Section 17.76.100 of the Municipal Code. Staff decisions on City Tree Review Permits, and view preservation determinations are appealable to the View Restoration Commission. When reviewing Staff decisions regarding City Street Tree Review Permits, the Commission shall utilize the same process as is followed when the Commission reviews a View Restoration Permit application, excluding the early neighbor consultation process. Decisions of the View Restoration Commission on City Street Tree Review Permits, and view preservation determinations are appealable to the City Council.

"'Viewing area' means that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways,
garages or closets) or that area of a lot (excluding the setback areas) where
the owner and City determine the best and most important view exists. In structures,
the finished floor elevation of any viewing area must be at or above the existing
grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest to
said viewing area."

"On the Palos Verdes Peninsula, it is quite common to have a near view and a far view because of the nature of many of the hills on the peninsula. Therefore, a 'view' which is protected by this Section is as follows:

a. A 'near view' which is defined as a scene located on the peninsula
including, but not limited to, a valley, ravine, equestrian trail, pastoral
environment or any natural setting; and/or

b. A 'far view' which is defined as a scene located off the peninsula
including, but not limited to, the ocean, Los Angeles basin, city lights at
night, harbor, Vincent Thomas Bridge, shoreline or off-shore islands.

A 'View' which is protected by this Section shall not include vacant land that is developable under the city code, distant mountain areas not normally visible nor the sky, either above distant mountain areas or above the height of off-shore islands. A 'View' may extend in any horizontal direction (three hundred and sixty degrees of horizonal arc) and shall be considered as a single view even if broken into segments by foliage, structures or other interference."

"The determination of a viewing area shall be made by balancing the nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from where the view is taken. Once finally determined for a particular application, the viewing area may not be changed for any subsequent application. In the event the city and owner cannot agree on the viewing area, the decision of the city shall control. A property owner may appeal the determination of viewing area. In such event, the decision on the viewing area will be made by the body making the final decision on the application. A property owner may preserve his or her right to dispute the decision on viewing area for a subsequent application without disputing the decision on a pending application by filing a statement to that effect and indicating the viewing area the property owner believes to be more appropriate. The statement shall be filed with the city prior to consideration of the pending application by the City."

B. The "viewing area" of the applicant's property is where the best and most important view is taken. The determination of the "viewing area" is made "by balancing the nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from where the view is taken".

1. On developed lots, the "viewing area" may be located on any level surface within the house (excluding bathrooms, closets, hallways or garages) which is at or above the existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest to the "viewing area" or within the buildable area of the lot. A viewing area may be located on a patio, deck, balcony or lawn area which is adjacent to the primary structure (generally within ten feet) and which is located on the same general grade on the lot as the primary structure, excluding the required setback areas and used as a gathering area. In determining the viewing area on a developed lot, greater weight generally will be given to locations within the primary structure where a view is taken than to locations outside of the primary structure where a view is taken, unless no view is taken from within the primary structure.

2. On properties where the applicant claims that he or she has a view from one or more locations either within or outside of the primary structure, it must be determined where the best and most important view is taken to determine the "viewing area" which is to be protected. The "viewing area" may only include multiple rooms or locations on the applicant's property if those locations share the same view.

3. The "viewing area" may only be located on a second (or higher) story of a structure if:

a. The construction of that portion of the structure did not require approval
of a height variation permit or variance, pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, or would not have required such a
permit if that Section had been in effect at the time that portion of the
structure was constructed; or

b. The viewing area is located in a part of the structure that constitutes
the primary living area of the house, which is the living room, dining room,
family room or kitchen. However, the viewing area may be located in the master
bedroom, if a view is not taken from one of the rooms comprising the primary
living area, and the master bedroom is located on the same story of the house
as the primary living area.

4. In documenting the views, Staff usually will conduct the view analysis in a natural standing position. In those cases where the view is enjoyed from a seated position, Staff will verify if that is the case, and if so, will conduct the view analysis from the seated position in that area at a height of not less than three (3) feet, six (6) inches.

IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS

Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code requires that, in order for a View Restoration notice to be issued, the View Restoration Commission must make the following six mandatory findings:

A. "The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts."

1. Each applicant must provide evidence of early neighbor consultation with
each foliage owner, utilizing the process described below.

2. Evidence of adequate early neighbor consultation shall consist of each
applicant filing a "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application"
with the City prior to the submittal of a formal View Restoration Permit Application.
Said notice shall be on a form provided by the City and shall be signed by
the owner of the applicant's property. Each applicant shall indicate, by
marking the appropriate box on the "Notice of Intent to File a View restoration
Permit Application" that the applicant has made an attempt to contact
the foliage owner prior to submittal and shall submit written proof of that
attempt in the form of a copy of a registered letter and the return receipt
. The notice shall include a signed statement from the applicant agreeing
to meet with City representatives and each foliage owner that will be named
in the pending application, to attempt to resolve any issues between the parties.
The notice also shall indicate at least three days and times when the applicant
is available to attend the pre-application meeting (see attached flowchart).

a. Upon receipt of a signed and complete Notice from an applicant, the Director
of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall provide written notification
to each foliage owner listed in the Notice, via certified mail, of the pending
application. The City's notification letter shall also request that the foliage
owner attend one pre-application meeting at City Hall to discuss the City's
view restoration process with City representatives and the applicant(s). The
notification letter to each foliageowner shall contain three possible
meeting times (date and time) identified by the City from which the foliage
owner may select. The determination of the three meetings shall be based on
the applicants' and City representatives' availability. The notification letter
shall require that the foliage owner respond back to the City in writing,
within 10 working days of the City's certified mailing of the notification,
with one selected date.

b. If any foliage owner responds in writing with a date selection within
the specified time frame, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
shall arrange a pre-application meeting at City Hall between the applicants,
the foliage owners and City representatives. Notice of the meeting shall be
provided by the City to all parties, at least 5 working days prior to the
meeting date.

The purpose of the pre-application meeting is to discuss the City's view restoration process with the affected parties and attempt to resolve the issues in order to avoid the filing of a formal application.

1. The initial pre-application meeting arranged by the City shall occur no later than 60 calendar days from the date that a "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application" is filed by an applicant with the City. Additional pre-application meetings with the City shall occur only if there is written consent from every applicant and foliage owner to do so. This does not preclude foliage owners and applicants from meeting on their own with no City participation.

2. The City shall be represented at the pre-application meeting by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or his/her designee and one View Restoration Commissioner. The determination of which Commissioner attends a meeting shall be made by the Chairperson of the View Restoration Commission and may be based on a rotational system, a volunteer system, availability or any combination thereof. Commissioners who reside within 500 feet of the applicant or foliage owner properties are ineligible to participate in the pre-application meeting. Any View Restoration Commissioner who attends a pre-application meeting is ineligible to participate in deliberations or voting on the application, if and when the application is before the Commission.

c. Once an applicant submits a "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application" and the City provides notification to a foliage owner of the pending application and requests their attendance at a pre-application meeting, the early neighbor consultation process shall be deemed to be terminated and the applicant(s) may immediately file a formal View Restoration Permit Application with the City if any of the following occurs:

1. A foliage owner fails to respond in writing with a date selection within
the time frame specified in the City's notification letter;

2. A foliage owner notifies the City in writing that he/she does not wish
to attend the pre-application meeting;

3. A foliage owner fails to attend the arranged pre-application meeting;
or

4. Unless waived in writing by every applicant for a particular application,
sixty (60) calendar days have elapsed from the date that a complete "Notice
of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application" was submitted to
the City by the applicant(s).

d. If an agreement is reached between the parties as a result of the pre-application
meeting, Staff and/or the assigned mediator will encourage the participants
to prepare and will assist in the preparation of the private agreement for
the parties to sign (see attached sample).

3. At the public hearing, the applicant may be asked to explain his/her specific
efforts to comply with the ordinance requirement for attempting to resolve
conflict.

B. "Foliage exceeding sixteen (16) feet or the ridge line of the primary
structure, whichever is lower, significantly impairs a view from the applicant's
viewing area, whether such foliage is located totally on one property, or when
combined with foliage located on more than one property."

1. After the location of the "viewing area" on the applicant's property is
determined, the Commission must find whether foliage, which exceeds the lower
of sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure, significantly impairs
a view from the "viewing area".

2. To determine which of the two measurements referenced in the paragraph above
is the lowest, the sixteen (16) foot height measurement shall be measured from
the base of the plant or tree (where it emerges from the ground).

3. Section 17.76.030 of the City's Development Code limits the height of hedges.
A "hedge" is defined by the Code as "shrubbery or trees planted and maintained
in such a manner as to create a physical barrier." A hedge can be included in
a View Restoration Permit application, if the top of the hedge exceeds sixteen
feet in height or the ridge line of the primary structure, whichever measurement
is lower. In such cases, the View Restoration Commission may require a hedge
to be trimmed to the lesser of sixteen (16) feet or the ridge line of the primary
structure, if necessary to restore the view. However, if the top of the hedge
is below sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure, whichever
measurement is lower, these cases shall be referred to the City's Code Enforcement
Division for resolution. Foliage which is determined by the Los Angeles County
Fire Department to be a fire hazard also shall be referred to the City's Code
Enforcement Division for immediate resolution.

4. The View Restoration Commission may, at its discretion, require the review
of any case by a qualified soils engineer, landscape architect, arborist or
other appropriate professional. The Staff shall be responsible for obtaining
qualified consultants to review and comment on the specific cases requested
by the Commission. In cases where expert advice is sought, the applicant(s)
shall be responsible for bearing the costs associated with this effort. The
Commission, again at its discretion, may abide by, or reject, the advice of
the consultant(s). Commission decisions must be supported by substantial evidence
which is in the record before the Commission.

5. The Commission shall only take action on foliage which significantly impairs
a view from the applicant's viewing area. Foliage which does not significantly
impair a view may remain in the applicant's view frame. The following criteria
may be used to help determine whether a view is being "significantly" impaired
by foliage:

a. Foliage Position Within the View Frame. Foliage that is located in the
center of a view frame is more likely to be found to create a significant
view impairment than foliage located on the outer edge of a view frame.

b. Single-component View vs. Multi-component View. Some view frames contain
a combination of different view components, such as a view of the ocean, harbor
and City lights (multi-component view); while some view frames consist entirely
of one component, such as only a view of the ocean (single-component view).
Foliage that entirely obscures one of the components of a "multi-component"
view is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment than
foliage that impairs the same degree of view of a "single-component"
view (see attached diagram).

c. Prominent Landmarks. Greater weight should be given to prominent land
marks or other significant features in the view frame such as the Vincent
Thomas Bridge, harbor, shoreline, distant mountain areas, city skylines, and
channel islands. As a result, foliage which impairs a view of any of these
landmarks is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment.

C. "The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which
is less than one thousand (1,000) feet from the applicant's property line."

Staff from the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement will determine
the distance from the applicant's property line to the nearest property line
of the site containing the foliage under consideration.

D. "The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing
vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created."

1. Where the applicant's property and the property containing the foliage in
question, are both located in the same subdivision or in adjacent subdivisions,
Staff will determine the date at which the lots were created.

2. In other cases, the following sources of information may be used to determine
the time when the foliage under consideration began to impair the view:

a. Aerial photographs maintained by the City.

b. Other photographs taken on known dates indicating the presence of vegetation
or lack of vegetation

e. Any reports documenting land conditions or site surveys that include information
about vegetation.

E. "Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement
of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located."

1. The burden of proving an "unreasonable infringement of indoor and/or outdoor
privacy" shall be on the foliage owner. The Commission will make a determination
on a case by case basis.

2. Given the variety and number of options which are available to preserve
indoor privacy, greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor
privacy than to protecting indoor privacy.

F. "For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation
and Parks District, the Commission shall also find that removal or trimming
of foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of Section
17.02.040 set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on
November 7, 1989, and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste
Recreation and Parks District with large numbers of trees."

1. The Miraleste Recreation and Parks District has adopted a procedure for
responding to view restoration and maintenance requests for foliage located
on its property. Such properties owned by the District are not subject to
the City's View Restoration Permit process.

2. Properties located within the boundaries of the District, but owned by
a person or entity other than the District, are subject to the View Restoration
Permit process and the additional finding above.

3. A map of the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District
and a list of the streets within the Miraleste Homeowners' Association are
attached.

Insert View Frame v Privacy Diagram

V. COMMISSION ACTION

A. If the Commission is able to make all of the mandatory findings set forth
in Section IV above, then the Commission must determine the action(s) which
must be taken to restore the view. Such action(s) may include culling, lacing,
trimming, or removal of the foliage which is significantly impairing the view
from the viewing area. These terms are defined as follows:

1. Culling shall mean the removal of dead, decayed, or weak limbs or foliage
from a tree or shrub.

2. Lacing shall mean a comprehensive method of pruning that systematically
removes excess foliage from a tree or shrub, but maintains its shape.

3. Trimming shall mean the removal of limbs or foliage from a tree or shrub.
Trimming includes, but is not limited to:

a. "Crown reducing", which is a comprehensive method of pruning that reduces
a tree's or shrub's height and/or spread. Crown reduction entails the reduction
of the top, sides or individual limbs by means of removal of the leaders or
the longest portion of limbs to a lateral branch large enough to assume the
terminal; and,

b. "Crown raising", which is a comprehensive method of pruning that removes
limbs and foliage from the lower part of a tree or shrub in order to raise
the canopy of the tree or shrub over the view.

c. "Topping", which is the cutting of branches and/or trunk of a tree or
shrub in a manner which substantially reduces the overall height of the tree
or shrub.

4. Removal shall mean the removal and disposal of a tree or shrub. including
the portion of the tree or shrub which does not significantly impair a view.
Unless otherwise directed by the Commission, removal usually shall not include
the removal and disposal of a plant's stump or root system since they usually
assist with erosion control.

B. If any tree or shrub that is ordered to be culled, laced, or trimmed dies
within one year of the initial work being performed due to the performance of
the work, the applicant or any subsequent owner of the applicant's property
shall be responsible for providing a replacement tree or shrub to the foliage
owner. This time period may be extended by the Commission if evidence is provided
by a certified arborist that a longer monitoring period is necessary for a specific
type of tree or shrub. However, if the city arborist determines that culling,
lacing, or trimming said tree or shrub will in all probability cause the tree
or shrub to die, and the foliage owner chooses not to accept removal and replacement
as an option, then the applicant will not be responsible for providing a replacement
tree or shrub to the foliage owner. The replacement foliage shall be provided
in accordance with the specifications described in section V-E of these Guidelines.
If the work is performed by the foliage owner, said foliage owner shall forfeit
the right to replacement foliage if the trimmed tree dies. If a tree or shrub
dies it is subject to removal pursuant to Section 8.24.060 of the RPV Municipal
Code.

C. Complete removal of anythe remaining portion of
the tree orshrub that does not significantly impair the view will only
be ordered if the owner of the property where the foliage is located consents
to the complete removal of the remaining tree or shrub and the Commission finds:

1. That upon the advice of the City's arborist, culling, lacing, or
trimming the foliage to sixteen (16) feet or the ridge line is likely to kill
the tree or shrub or threaten the public health, safety and welfare; or

2. That upon the advice of the City's arborist,culling, lacing, or
trimming the foliage to sixteen (16) feet or the ridgeline will destroy the
aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be trimmed, laced or reduced in
height.

D. In order to balance trimming, the commission may require trimming portions
of a tree that is below 16 feet or the ridgeline. Otherwise, the end result
would be foliage that is only partially trimmed and not aesthetically appealing.
However, if a foliage owner objects to any trimming that is below the 16 feet
or the ridgeline, then he must do so in writing and within 30 days of final
approval of a view restoration or preservation application. If a written objection
is submitted, then the foliage owner will not be required to trim, lace or prune
below that level.

D E. The Commission also may order the applicant to replace
trees or shrubs which have been removed if the owner of the property where the
foliage is locatedconsents to the replacement of the tree or shrub and
or the Commission finds:

1. That removal without replacement foliage will cause a significant adverse
impact on:

a. The public health, safety and welfare;

An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the
Commission that replacement foliage is needed to help stabilize a slope or
minimize slope erosion.

b. The privacy of the owner of the property where the foliage is located;

An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the
Commission that replacement foliage to mitigate the loss of privacy provided
by pre-existing foliage is needed to help screen or block views from the
applicant's property into the foliage owner's usable yard area (deck, patio,
pool/spa area, barbecue area) and/or residence (unless interior privacy can
be achieved by other means).

c. Shade provided to the dwelling or the property where the foliage is located;

An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the
Commission that replacement foliage is needed to help provide shade to an
area of the foliage owner's property, such as a usable yard area (deck, patio,
pool/spa area, barbecue area) or residence, that is receiving shade from the
foliage that is to be removed.

d. The energy-efficiency of the dwelling where the foliage is located;

An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the
Commission that replacement foliage is needed to help cool an area of the
foliage owner's residence in the summer months, that is being kept cool by
foliage that is to be removed.

e. The health or viability of the remaining landscaping where the foliage
is located; or

An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the
Commission that replacement foliage is needed to help provide shade to existing
sun-sensitive landscaping on the foliage owner's property, that is receiving
shade from the foliage that is to be removed.

f. The integrity of the landscaping of the property on which the foliage
is located.

An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the
Commission that replacement foliage is needed to replace foliage that is a
focal point or integral element of an existing landscaping plan.

E F. The Commission shall ensure that replacement foliage
is reasonably comparable to the foliage removed in terms of function and/or
aesthetics. For example, if replacement foliage is determined to be necessary
to replace foliage located on a slope, the replacement foliage should be of
a woody-root species variety that provides soil stability. The selection of
the type of replacement foliage shall be made by the foliage owner from an approved
list of foliage types provided by the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement or approved by the City arborist.

F G. The Commission is not obligated to order replacement
of every tree or shrub ordered removed with a new tree or shrub. For example,
two new replacement trees may be able to provide the same level of privacy as
five pre-existing trees that are ordered removed. Replacement trees or shrubs
generally should be of a 15-gallon size, and should not be larger than a 24-inch
box size, unless warranted by exceptional circumstances.

G H. The Commission may require that a long-term foliage maintenance
schedule be incorporated into the conditions of approval of an approved View
Restoration Permit. The purpose of the maintenance schedule is to dictate the
minimum frequency of future trimming (i.e. semi-annual, annual or biennial)
based on the growth rates of the subject foliage so as to not significantly
impair a view. Alternatively, the Commission may specify the amount of allowable
growth as measured with respect to a stable point of reference that will not
significantly encroach into the view, and require that when this point is reached,
the foliage owner may be required to trim the foliage back to the height established
by the Commission. In establishing the maintenance schedule, the Commission
may take into account seasonal dormant periods of the subject foliage, when
trimming is least harmful to the foliage.

H I. The Commission shall require that a property owner trim
or remove foliage within ninety (90) days. If no date is specified by the Commission,
the ninety day time frame shall commence upon the receipt of a letter from the
City notifying the foliage owner to trim/remove the foliage. Such a letter is
sent by the City once a trust account has been established by the applicant
for the cost of the trimming/removal. If evidence is provided to the Commission
that it is less harmful to trim certain foliage during the foliage's dormant
period, the Commission may require that the subject foliage be trimmed ninety
(90) days from an established date. In situations where foliage is dormant during
the winter months, the Commission shall require that the trimming be performed
during the months of November through March. In situations where the Commission
determines that not all of the foliage on a property needs to be trimmed during
a specific time of the year, the Commission may take either of the following
actions:

1. Establish a specified time period for trimming the time-sensitive foliage
and establish a different time period for trimming the remaining foliage.
This will require the foliage owner to perform two separate trimming actions.

2. Establish a specified time period for trimming the time-sensitive foliage
and require that the remaining foliage also be trimmed at that time.

I J. The Commission shall require that all maintenance schedules
incorporated into the conditions of approval of a View Restoration Permit be
reviewed at a future date to allow the Commission an opportunity to assess the
adequacy of the maintenance schedule, as well as the foliage owner's ability
to maintain the foliage in compliance with the conditions of approval. The review
date shall occur a minimum of one year after the initial trimming is performed.
The specific date shall be set by the Commission at the time it makes its decision
on a View Restoration Permit, and shall be based on the growth rates of the
subject foliage, as well as any other factors that the Commission finds are
pertinent to the decision. On or about the specified review date, City Staff
will inspect the foliage sites and transmit a brief report to the Commission
which describes whether the foliage is being maintained in accordance with the
conditions of approval. The report shall also contain a recommendation from
City Staff as to whether the maintenance schedule should be amended. The Commission
shall consider the report and determine if a public hearing to amend the conditions
of approval is necessary. If a public hearing is determined to be necessary,
Staff shall transmit to the Commission a report with recommendations for additional
or modified conditions of approval. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided
in the same manner as required by Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 for the original
public hearing. The Commission decision on the review hearing is appealable
to the City Council pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.

J K. The Commission shall require that an applicant submit
one (1) to three (3) itemized estimates to the City for carrying out the work
required by an approved View Restoration Permit. Said estimates shall be submitted
within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the Resolution and shall include
the cost to have an ISA certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist on site
to perform or supervise the work being done. Said estimates are to be supplied
by licensed landscape or licensed tree service contractors, acceptable to the
City, which provide insurance by insurers in a form acceptable to the City,
and shall include all costs of cleanup and removal of debris. In addition, the
applicant shall pay to the City an amount equal to the lowest of the estimates
and such funds shall be maintained by the City, in a City trust account until
completion of the work. Upon completion of the work, the foliage owner shall
notify the City and shall submit a copy of a paid invoice showing that the work
was performed. Upon submittal of the invoice and verification by City Staff
of compliance, the City shall transmit the funds from the City trust account
to the foliage owner. If the paid invoice submitted by the foliage owner is
for an amount less than the funds in the City's trust account, the foliage owner
shall only be transmitted an amount equal to the actual cost of the trimming.
In such situations, the balance of the trust account shall be refunded back
to the applicant or applied to the applicant's permit processing account, if
that account contains a negative balance. If the paid invoice submitted by the
foliage owner is for an amount that exceeds the funds in the City's trust account,
the foliage owner shall only receive the funds from the City trust account and
the foliage owner shall be responsible for paying the difference. If a foliage
owner chooses to do the required work himself/herself, the foliage owner shall
not be compensated from the City trust account and the amount in the trust account
shall be refunded to the applicant(s).

VI. APPEAL OF COMMISSION DECISION

A. A decision of the Commission on a View Restoration Permit is appealable
to the City Council. After considering the written and oral testimony at the
appeal hearing, the City Council may take one of the following actions:

1. Affirm the decision of the View Restoration Commission and approve the
application upon finding that all applicable findings have been correctly
made and all provisions of Section 17.02.040(C)(2) of the Municipal Code have
been complied with; or

2. Approve the application but impose additional or different conditions
as the City Council deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of Section 17.02.040(C)(2);
or

3. Disapprove the application upon finding that all applicable findings cannot
be made or all provisions of Section 17.02.040(C)(2) have not been complied
with; or

4. Refer the matter back to the View Restoration Commission to conduct further
proceedings. The remanded proceedings may include the presentation of significant
new evidence which was raised in conjunction with the appeal. The City Council
shall state the ground(s) for the remand and shall give instructions to the
View Restoration Commission concerning any error found by the City Council
in the Commission's prior determination.

B. The appeal hearing may be conducted in a room other than the regular City
Council chambers (e.g. the Fireside Room at the Hesse Park Community Center).
The establishment of specific time allotments for speakers is optional and may
be set or waived by the Mayor at the Mayor's discretion. The room may be arranged
in a manner that promotes a "round table" discussion among the involved parties.

VII. APPLICATION PROCEDURES

A. Once an applicant completes the early neighbor consultation process described
in Section IV-A of these Guidelines and the view problem is not resolved and
the view owner wishes to proceed, the applicant(s) may complete and submit a
View Restoration Permit application form (see attached form) to the City's Department
of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, accompanied by the appropriate filing
fees, in order to initiate a formal request for a View Restoration Permit.

B. It should be noted that the fees required for a View Restoration Permit
are established by the City Council by resolution. Due to the
wide variation in View Restoration Permit applications, the fee is a combination
flat fee and trust deposit The fee structure is designed so that
the applicant will pays two separate flat fees as follows:

1. The flat first fee is the a fixed amount
that is paid by all an applicants to
cover the City's costs associated with processing steps, such as reviewing
the application for completeness, and conducting the initial
site visit and processing a formal application from submittal through to
the a View Restoration Commission decision.

2. The trust deposit covers the variable City costs following the
initial site visit, so that the applicant is charged only for the time the Staff
or an expert consultant (if any) spends on the project.Examples
ofStaff's hourlysaid costs Specifically,
said fees would include cover the costs of reviewing an application
for completeness, conducting any subsequent
site visits, attending the public hearing(s) and preparing the Staff Report(s)
and Resolution(s) (written decision of theCommission).

3. After the initial site visit, Staff will estimate the approximate amount
of the trust deposit based upon the anticipated complexity of the case (i.e.,
the number of trees and/or properties involved, etc.) and provide the estimate
to the applicant.

2. The second fee is a fixed amount that would be paid by an applicant if
the project an application is approved by the VRC. then the
applicant will pay a second flat fee which will be used for obtaining compliance
with final decisions that are rendered by the City. Specifically, this
fee would cover the review of the trimming/removal bids, the monitoring of the
work, and the documentation of the restored view.

3. The establishment of a trust deposit account by an applicant to cover the
cost of the actual foliage trimming/removal is separate from the two processing
fees as described in Section V-J of the Guidelines.

C. Once a formal View Restoration Permit application has been submitted,
the City will review the application to determine if the information is complete,
before beginning processing the application. If any information is missing or
components of the application are incomplete, the applicant will be notified
of any deficiencies in writing, and the application will be held in abeyance
until the necessary materials are received by the City. If an applicant does
not submit the necessary information and the application remains incomplete
for six (6) months, the City shall administratively withdraw the application.

D. Once the application is deemed complete, the following sequence of steps
shall occur in order to process an application for a View Restoration Permit
(also see attached flow chart):

1. Staff notifies the foliage owner(s), in writing, that thea formal request for view restoration has been filed with the City, attaching
a copy of the application.

2. Staff schedules and conducts site visit(s) to the applicant's and foliage
owner's properties. During the first site visit to the foliage owner's property,
Staff will inquire as to whether the foliage owner wishes to have the Commission
members visit their property. A foliage owner may request Commissioners visit
his/her property in order to fully assess the case or demonstrate unique site
conditions, such as special landscaping, slope stability or privacy concerns.
Requests for the Commission to visit a foliage owner's property must be made
in writing by the foliage owner and will be honored by the Commission.

3. Staff prepares a Staff Report to the View Restoration Commission, which
will include the following:

a. Application form;

b. Early Neighbor Consultation documentation;

c. Analysis addressing the criteria set forth in Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c)
of the City's Municipal Code (View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance);

d. Recommendation(s) on the disposition of the application;

e. Determination if any of the Commission members (regular and alternates)
are ineligible to participate on the application, based on the proximity

(within 500 feet) of their properties to the subject (applicant and foliage
owner) properties or if they participated in a pre-application meeting;

f. Determination if any Commission members or Council members on
appeal live or own property within 500 to 2,500 feet of an applicant or foliage
owner's property, in order for a Commission member to determine if he or she
has a conflict of interest.

g f. A tentative site visitation schedule for eligible
Commission members (regular and alternate).

4. Staff establishes a date (in consultation with the Chairperson of the Commission)
for the public hearing on the application and provides written notice of the
hearing to the applicant(s) and the foliage owner(s) a minimum of 30 days prior
to the hearing date. Notice of the hearing date shall also be published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City or clearly posted on each applicant's
property.

5. The eligible members of the View Restoration Commission visit the site(s)
during the 30 day notice period.

a. Commissioners are required to visit the applicant's property. Eligibility
to participate in the decision on a View Restoration Permit application is
dependant on the eligible Commissioner visiting the applicant site(s) prior
to the public hearing. If an applicant refuses access to his or her site,
the request for a View Restoration Permit will be denied.

b. Commissioners will visit the foliage owner's property if requested to
do so by the foliage owner(s). Commissioners will attempt to visit a foliage
owner's property unless the foliage owner denies a Commissioner access. Although
a foliage owner has discretion as to whether to allow Commissioners into his/
her property, by not allowing site visits of their property, it may be more
difficult for Commissioners to evaluate issues raised by the foliage owner
when considering an application.

c. Commissioners are responsible for arranging visits to the site(s). However,
no more than three (3) Commissioners (regular and/or alternate members) may
visit the site at the same time.

6. The View Restoration Commission conducts a public hearing pursuant to the
Commission's adopted Administrative Procedures (VRC Resolution No. 94-1
2000-3). The Chairperson's instructions to the audience will generally follow
these guidelines:

a. Any person desiring to speak must first be recognized by the Chairperson.

b. All participants must speak from the podium.

c. All speakers must first state their full names and addresses, and the
names of any persons in whose behalf they are appearing (if any).

d. All comments must be made clearly and audibly.

e. Repetition of comments should be avoided, and speakers will be discouraged
from reading a submission which has been copied and distributed to the Commission
or is contained in the agenda packet.

f. Normally, the applicant(s) and foliage owner(s) will be limited to a five
(5) minute presentation and a three (3) minute rebuttal (if requested). All
other persons will be generally limited to a three (3) minute presentation
each.

g. Except when necessary for immediate clarification of a particular point,
no person shall be allowed to speak a second time until all others wishing
to speak have had an opportunity to do so, and then only at the direction
of the Chairperson.

h. Due to unusual complexity of the case, submission of expert testimony
or a large number of speakers on a particular case, the Chairperson, at his
or her discretion, may allocate more than five (5) minutes per side and allow
those wishing to speak on each side to designate a spokesperson or to divide
the allotted time among themselves.

7. After the public hearing is closed and the Commission has reached a decision
on the application, a resolution reflecting the Commission's decision shall
be adopted by the Commission. The resolution shall be drafted by Staff and,
where appropriate, reviewed by the City Attorney. If necessary, at a subsequent
meeting, the resolution may be placed on the Commission's Consent Calendar for
final action. Adoption of the resolution shall result in the issuance of a View
Restoration Permit or denial of the request.

E. Foliage not Specifically Designated

Conditions of approval of View Restoration Permit Applications specify individual
trees or plants to be trimmed or removed. However, view impairing foliage often
grows in clusters or is screened by foliage in the foreground so that individual
plants are not readily discernible. Therefore, foliage which is located on the
same property and is in the view that was analyzed by Staff but was not specifically
designated in the view analysis because it was behind other foliage which was
specifically designated in the view analysis and/or the decision and the conditions
of approval, shall be trimmed to the same height that was established for the
designated foliage.

F. Once the work is performed, Staff will document the applicant's view
with photographs taken from the applicant's viewing area with a 50 mm lens camera.
The photographs will be kept on file with the City and copies shall be given
to all involved parties to maintain the foliage in accordance with the City's
final decision.

VIII. VIEW PRESERVATION

A. With regard to foliage obstructing a view after the issuance
of a View Restoration Permit or upon the effective date of the Ordinance (November 17,
1989), Section 17.02.040(B)(3) of the Municipal Code states:

"Foliage Obstruction. No person shall significantly impair a view from a
viewing area of a lot:

a.By permitting foliage to grow to a height exceeding the height
determined by the View Restoration Commission through the issuance of a View
Restoration Permit under subsection C.2 of this section; or

b. If no View Restoration Permit has been issued by the View Restoration Commission,
by permitting foliage to grow to a height which is the lesser of:

(i) the ridge line of the primary structure on the property, or

(ii) sixteen (16) feet.

If foliage on the property already exceeds the provisions of subdivisions
(i) and (ii) referenced above on the effective date of this Section, as approved
by the voters on November 7, 1989, and significantly impairs a view from a viewing
area of a lot, then notwithstanding whether any person has sought or obtained
issuance of a view restoration permit, the foliage owner shall not let the foliage
exceed the height existing on the effective date of this section (November 17,
1989). The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that the owners of foliage
which violates the provisions of this paragraph on the effective date of this
section shall not allow the foliage to increase in height. This paragraph does
not 'grandfather' or otherwise permit such foliage to continue to block a view."

A. After Issuance of a View Restoration Permit

1. After the issuance of a View Restoration Permit and the initial foliage
trimming and/or removal has been completed in accordance with the approved permit,
Staff shall document the restored view through the use of color or black and
white photography or other method approved by the Commission. The photographic
documentation shall be made part of the City's permanent records and shall be
kept on file at the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department. Once
the maximum height of the foliage that is subject to the approved View Restoration
Permit is established, said height shall be used as a benchmark by City Staff
for making a determination of significant view impairment in any future view
preservation enforcement actions that become necessary.

2. Upon receipt of a written complaint from a VRP applicant or the subsequent
owner of an applicant's property, that foliage has exceeded the height limit
imposed by a View Restoration Permit, City Staff shall visit the site andexamine the photographic documentation on file or other evidence to determine
whether the foliage has been maintained in a manner that is consistent with
the approved View Restoration Permit (VRP). If foliage which is the subject
of an approved VRP exceeds the height limits prescribed in the approved VRP,
the City shall order that the foliage owner bring the foliage into compliance
with the VRP within 21 30 days. If the
foliage owner does not comply within the specified time, the City will impose
a fine (established by Council Resolution) and the matter will be forwarded
to the City Attorney's office. Additionally, if the foliage does not
exceed the height limits prescribed in the approved VRP, the City will impose
a fine (established by Council resolution) against the applicant. If City
Staff determines that the foliage is in compliance with the VRP, no further
action is necessary. Unless specified in a Commission approved long-term maintenance
schedule, a property owner shall be limited to filing a complaint without payment
of a fee to a maximum of once every twelve (12) months. If a property owner
wishes to file a complaint more frequently than once every twelve (12) months,
the property owner may do so upon payment of a fee established by City Council
Resolution.

B. In Absence of a View Restoration Permit

1. The owner of foliage is responsible for protecting any right he or she
has to exceed the foliage height limitations that went into effect on November
17, 1989, by submitting the appropriate documentation which can include photographs.

2. The property owner wishing to protect his/her existing view is responsible
for submitting: 1.) documentation of the view, as it existed on or after the
effective date of the Ordinance; and/or 2.) documentation of the view impairing
foliage as it existed on November 17, 1989. Documentation shall consist of the
submittal of a "Documentation of Existing View or Foliage" Form (attached)
along withthe associated fee established by Council Resolution,
accompanied by color or black and white photographs, which clearly provide evidence
that accurately depicts the view and/or foliage as it existed from the property
owner’s viewing area on the date the photograph was taken. The submitted
documentation shall be verified by City Staff with a visit to the view impaired
site. If Staff is able to verify that the photographs accurately depict the
view from the property owner's viewing area, as defined in these Guidelines,
then the property owner's photographs will be incorporated into the City's files.
If said photographs do not accurately depict the view form the "viewing area",
then Staff will advise the property owner that the documentation has been rejected.
These records shall be kept on file at the Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement Department for use, if necessary,Any verified
photographs will be used as a bench mark in future view preservation enforcement
actions.

3. Once documentation of a view or foliage has been submitted to the City
and verified by City Staff, a property owner may file a Notice of
Intent to File a View Preservation Application, along with a fee established
by City Council resolution petition with the City requesting
one of the following view preservation actions:

a. That foliage which exceeded the lesser of: a) the ridgeline of the primary
structure on the property; or 2) sixteen (16) feet and significantly impaired
the view from a viewing area of a lot on November 17, 1989 be trimmed to the
height that it existed on November 17, 1989, as shown in the submitted and
verified documentation;

b. That foliage which has grown into a property owner's view, as documented
and verified by City Staff on or after the effective date of the ordinance
(November 17, 1989), and significantly impairs the view from a viewing area
of the lot, be trimmed so as to eliminate significant view impairment.

45. Upon receipt of a Notice of Intent to File a View
Preservation Application, Staff will visit the applicant's property to verify
that there is a significant impairment and to eliminate the need to proceed
further in the process if there is no significant view impairment. If a significant
view impairment is found, a pre-application meeting shall be held in order to
comply with the early Neighbor Consultation Process describedin
Section IV-A.

a. If an agreement is reached between the parties as a result of the pre-application
meeting, Staff and/or the assigned mediator will encourage the participants
to prepare and will assist in the preparation of the private agreement for the
parties to sign.

b. If no agreement is reached between the parties during the Pre-application
Process, then the applicant may file a formal application along with the
appropriate fee established by Council Resolution. Once a formal View Preservation
Permit application has been submitted, a Notice of the Director's final
Determination shall be issued to the applicantpetitioner
and foliage owner(s). The Director's Final Determination may
be appealed to the View Restoration Commission by the applicant petitioner,
the foliage owner or any interested party by filing a written appeal and submitting
the appropriate fee, as established by City Council resolution, to the City
within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of the Director's Final
Determination Notice. The decision of the Commission may be appealed to the
City Council by the applicant petitioner, the foliage
owner or any interested party by filing a written appeal and submitting the
appropriate fee, as established by City Council resolution, to the City within
fifteen (15) days of the Commission's decision.

5 6. Once the appeal process has been exhausted, the City's
View Preservation Determination shall be final. If the City's final determination
is that view preservation action is warranted on a particular property, the
foliage owner shall be responsible for trimming the foliage, at his/her expense,
as so ordered by the City. If the City's final determination in response to
an applicationa petition is that view preservation
action is not warranted on a particular property, no further action by the foliage
owner is necessary in response to the filed applicationpetition.

6 7. Once the work is performed, Staff will document the
applicant's view with photographs taken from the applicant's viewing area with
a 50-mm lens camera. The photographs will be kept on file with the City and
copies shall be given to all involved parties to use for future trimming purposes.

7 4. The filing of a petitionan application
by a property owner requesting a view preservation action without payment of
a fee shall be limited to a maximum of once every twelve (12) months. If a property
owner wishes to file an applicationa petition more
frequently than once every twelve (12) months, the property owner may do so
upon payment of a fee established by City Council Resolution.

C. Review Criteria for View Preservation Applications in the Absence
of a View Restoration Permit

In order for a View Preservation Application to be approved, the Director of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement must make the following five findings:

1. The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process
and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts.

a. Each applicant must provide evidence of early neighbor consultation
with each foliage owner, utilizing the process described below.

b. Evidence of adequate early neighbor consultation shall consist of each
applicant filing a "Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation Application"
with the City prior to the submittal of a formal View Preservation Application.
Said notice shall be on a form provided by the City and shall be signed by the
owner of the applicant's property. The notice shall include a signed statement
from the applicant agreeing to meet with City representatives and each foliage
owner that will be named in the pending View Preservation Application, to attempt
to resolve any issues between the parties. The notice also shall indicate at
least three days and times when the applicant is available to attend the pre-application
meeting (see attached flowchart).

1. Upon receipt of a signed and complete Notice from an applicant, the
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall provide written notification
to each foliage owner listed in the Notice, via certified mail, of the pending
application. The City's notification letter shall also request that each foliage
owner attend one pre-application meeting at City Hall to discuss the City's
view preservation process with City representatives and the applicant(s). The
notification letter to each foliage owner shall contain three possible meeting
times (date and time) identified by the City from which the foliage owner may
select. The determination of the three meetings shall be based on the applicants'
and City representatives' availability. The notification letter shall require
that the foliage owner respond back to the City in writing, within 10 working
days of the City's certified mailing of the notification, with one selected
date.

2. If any foliage owner responds in writing with a date selection within
the specified time frame, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
shall arrange a pre-application meeting at City Hall between the applicants,
the foliage owners and City representatives. Notice of the meeting shall be
provided by the City to all parties, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting
date.

The purpose of the pre-application meeting is to discuss the City's view preservation
process with the affected parties and attempt to resolve the issues in order
to avoid the filing of a formal application.

a. The initial pre-application meeting arranged by the City shall occur
no later than 60 calendar days from the date that a "Notice of Intent to File
a View Preservation Application" is filed by an applicant with the City. Additional
pre-application meetings with the City shall occur only if there is written
consent from every applicant and foliage owner to do so. This does not preclude
foliage owners and applicants from meeting on their own with no City participation.

b. The City shall be represented at the pre-application meeting by the
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or his/her designee and
one View Restoration Commissioner. The determination of which Commissioner attends
a meeting shall be made by the Chairperson of the View Restoration Commission
and may be based on a rotational system, a volunteer system, availability or
any combination thereof. Commissioners who reside within 500 feet of the applicant
or foliage owner properties are ineligible to participate in the pre-application
meeting. Any View Restoration Commissioner who attends a pre-application meeting
is ineligible to participate in deliberations or voting on the application,
if and when the application is before the Commission.

3. Once an applicant submits a "Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation
Permit Application" and the City provides notification to a foliage owner of
the pending application and requests their attendance at a pre-application meeting,
the early neighbor consultation process shall be deemed to be terminated and
the applicant(s) may immediately file a formal View Preservation Application
with the City if any of the following occurs:

a. A foliage owner fails to respond in writing with a date selection within
the time frame specified in the City's notification letter;

b. A foliage owner notifies the City in writing that he/she does not wish
to attend the pre-application meeting;

c. A foliage owner fails to attend the arranged pre-application meeting;
or

d. Unless waived in writing by every applicant for a particular application,
sixty (60) calendar days have elapsed from the date that a complete "Notice
of Intent to File a View Preservation Permit Application" was submitted to the
City by the applicant(s).

4. If an appeal hearing is necessary, the applicant may be asked to explain
his/her specific efforts to comply with the ordinance requirement for attempting
to resolve conflict.

2. Foliage exceeding sixteen (16) feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,
whichever is lower, significantly impairs a view from the applicant's viewing
area, whether such foliage is located totally on one property, or when combined
with foliage located on more than one property.

a. After the location of the "viewing area" on the applicant's property is
determined, the Director must find whether foliage, which exceeds the lower
of sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure, significantly impairs
a view from the "viewing area".

b. To determine which of the two measurements referenced in the paragraph above
is the lowest, the sixteen (16) foot height measurement shall be measured from
the base of the plant or tree (where it emerges from the ground).

c. Section 17.76.030 of the City's Development Code limits the height of hedges.
A "hedge" is defined by the Code as "shrubbery or trees planted and maintained
in such a manner as to create a physical barrier." A hedge can be included in
a View Preservation Permit application, if the top of the hedge exceeds sixteen
feet in height or the ridge line of the primary structure, whichever measurement
is lower. In such cases, the Director may require a hedge to be trimmed to the
lesser of sixteen (16) feet or the ridge line of the primary structure, if necessary
to restore the view. However, if the top of the hedge is below sixteen feet
or the ridge line of the primary structure, whichever measurement is lower,
these cases shall be referred to the City's Code Enforcement Division for resolution.
Foliage which is determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department to be
a fire hazard also shall be referred to the City's Code Enforcement Division
for immediate resolution.

d. The Director shall only take action on foliage which significantly impairs
a view from the applicant's viewing area. Foliage which does not significantly
impair a view may remain in the applicant's view frame. The following criteria
may be used to help determine whether a view is being "significantly" impaired
by foliage:

1. Foliage Position Within the View Frame. Foliage that is located in the center
of a view frame is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment
than foliage located on the outer edge of a view frame.

2. Single-component View vs. Multi-component View. Some view frames contain
a combination of different view components, such as a view of the ocean, harbor
and City lights (multi-component view); while some view frames consist entirely
of one component, such as only a view of the ocean (single-component view).
Foliage that entirely obscures one of the components of a "multi-component"
view is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment than
foliage that impairs the same degree of view of a "single-component"
view (see attached diagram).

3. Prominent Landmarks. Greater weight should be given to prominent landmarks
or other significant features in the view frame such as the Vincent Thomas Bridge,
harbor, shoreline, distant mountain areas, city skylines, and Channel Islands.
As a result, foliage which impairs a view of any of these landmarks is more
likely to be found to create a significant view impairment.

3. "The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which is
less than one thousand (1,000) feet from the applicant's property line."

Staff from the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement will determine
the distance from the applicant's property line to the nearest property line
of the site containing the foliage under consideration.

4. The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing
vegetation in November 1989 .

5. Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement
of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located."

a. The burden of proving an "unreasonable infringement of indoor and/or outdoor
privacy" shall be on the foliage owner. The Director will make a determination
on a case by case basis.

b. Given the variety and number of options which are available to preserve
indoor privacy, greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor
privacy than to protecting indoor privacy.

e. Upon receipt of a filed petition from a property owner requesting the preservation
of a documented view, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
or his/her designee (Director) shall visit the petitioner's property to verify
the request and determine whether a City view preservation action is appropriate.
The City's determination will be based on whether the criteria needed for taking
either of the actions described in Section VIII-A-2-c is being met.

f. After the review of a petitioner's documentation and a site visit to his/her
property, the Director shall make a preliminary determination as to whether
City view preservation action is appropriate. Written notice of the Director's
preliminary determination shall be provided via certified mail to the petitioner
and foliage owner. If the Director determines that no view preservation action
is warranted, the notice shall state the reasons for not taking view preservation
action. If the Director determines that view preservation is warranted, the
notice shall explain the actions that the foliage owner must take to bring his/her
property into compliance with Section 17.02.040 of the City's Municipal Code.
The notice shall also request that the petitioner and foliage owner attend a
meeting at City Hall to discuss the City's preliminary determination. The notice
shall require the petitioner and foliage owner to respond to the City in writing,
within ten (10) working days of the City's certified mailing of the notice.

g. If both the petitioner and the foliage owner respond in writing to the notice
within the specified time, the Director shall arrange a meeting at City Hall
between the two parties to discuss the filed view preservation petition. Notice
of the meeting shall be provided to both parties at least five (5) working days
prior to the meeting date.

h. The City shall be represented at the meeting by the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement or his/her designee and one View Restoration Commissioner.
The determination of which Commissioner attends a meeting shall be made by the
Chairperson of the View Restoration Commission and may be based on a rotational
system, a volunteer system, availability or any combination thereof. Commissioners
who reside within 500 feet of the petitioner or foliage owner properties are
ineligible to participate in the meeting. Any View Restoration Commissioner
who attends a meeting is ineligible to participate in deliberations or voting
on the decision, if the Director's final determination is appealed to the Commission.

i. After the meeting or expiration of the specified time period to respond,
the Director shall make a final determination on the petition request if:

1. A foliage owner or petitioner fails to respond in writing to the City's
request for a meeting within the specified time period;

2. A foliage owner or petitioner notifies the Director in writing that he/she
does not want to attend the meeting; or

3. A foliage owner or petitioner fails to attend the arranged meeting.